This study used naming fluency, visual and verbal mnemonics, and their interactions for transfer of strategy to a new task for recall and categorization of facts about world religions. Fluent and disfluent high school namers were identified in 10 intact classes and randomly assigned to verbal (N = 25) and visual (N = 17) mnemonic treatments delivered during 21 to 26 39-minute lessons via mastery learning methodology. Student selection of strategy use, that is, transfer of the strategy to a new task, was analyzed by chi square. Recall and categorization after a 2-day and 7-day delay were analyzed by ANOVA with repeated measures. Although no significant differences were found, 57% of the students selected to transfer the strategy; after a 2-day delay, 81% of the material was recalled and 87% was categorized; after a 7-day delay, 63% of the material was recognized.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhrensSLB (1988). The effects of FIRST-letter mnemonic strategy adaptation for elementary students use with intermediate grade students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 3326.
2.
BennettGKSeashoreHGWesmanAG (1984). Differential Aptitude Tests: Technical Supplement Forms V and W. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
3.
BlockJHEfthimHBumsR (1988). Building effective mastery learning schools. New York: Longman.
4.
CarrollJB (1971). Problems of measurement related to the concept of learning for mastery. In BlockJH (Ed.), Mastery learning: Theory and practice (pp. 29-46). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
5.
ChanLKSColePGMorrisJN (1990). Effects of instruction in the use of a visual-imagery strategy on the reading-comprehension competence of disabled and average readers. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 13, 2-11.
6.
ConoverWJ (1980). Practical nonparametric statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
7.
DeshlerDDLenzBK (1989). The strategies instructional approach. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 36, 203-224.
8.
DeshlerDDSchumakerJB (1986). Learning strategies: An instructional alternative for low-achieving adolescents. Exceptional Children, 52, 583-590.
9.
DeshlerDDSchumakerJB (1988). An instructional model for leaching students how to learn. In GradenJECurtisMJ (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 391-411). Washington, DC: NASP.
10.
FentonE (1966). Teaching the new social studies in secondary schools: An inductive approach. New York: Holl, Rinehart, & Winston.
11.
GelheizerLSolarRSheperdMWoznialR (1983). Teaching learning disabled children to memorize: A rationale for plans and practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 421-425.
12.
GermanDJ (1990a, March). Assessment and intervention of wordfinding disorders in adolescents. Paper presented al the meeting of the New York Branch of the Orton Dyslexia Society, New York.
13.
GermanDJ (1990b). Test of Adolescent/Adult Word Finding. Allen, TX: DLM.
14.
HammillDDLeighJEMcNuttGLarsenSC (1987). Learning disabilities: Issues on definition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 109-113.
15.
KeppelG (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
16.
KneipWM (1989). Global education as school reform. Educational Leadership, 47(1), 43-45.
MarzanoRJBrandtRSHughesCSJonesBFPresseisenBZRankinSCSuhorC (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19.
MastropieriMAScruggsTEFulkBJM (1990). Teaching abstract vocabulary with the keyword method: Effects on recall and comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23,92-96.
20.
MastropieriMAScruggsTELevinJR (1985). Maximizing what exceptional students can learn: A review of keyword and other mnemonic strategy research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 92-100.
21.
MastropieriMAScruggsTELevinJR (1987). Mnemonic instruction in special education. In McDanielMAPressleyM (Eds.), Imagery and related mnemonic processes, theories, individual differences, and applications (pp. 358-376). New York. Springer-Verlag.
22.
MatarazzoJD (1972). Wechsler’s measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (5th ed.). Ne York: Oxford.
23.
MedleyDMCokerHCokerJGLorentzJLSoarRSSpauldingRL (1981). Assessing teacher performance from observed competency indicators defined by classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 74, 197-216.
24.
MedleyCokerHSoarRS (1984). Measurement-based evaluation of teacher performance: An empirical approach. New York: Longman.
25.
NagelDRSchumakerJBDeshlerDD (1986). The FIRST- letter mnemonic strategy. Lawrence, KS: Excel Enterprises.
26.
O’SullivanMPressleyM (1984). Completeness of instruction and strategy transfer. Journal of Child Psychology, 33, 275-288.
PressleyM (1982). Elaboration and memory development. Child Development, 53, 296-309.
29.
RabinowitzM (1988). On leaching cognitive strategies: The influence of accessibility of conceptual knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 229-235.
30.
RabinowitzMChiMTH (1987). An interactive model of strategic processing. In CeciSJ (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities (Vol. 2, pp. 83-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
ScruggsTEMastropieriMA (1989a). Mnemonic instruction in LD students: A field-based evaluation. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 12, 119-125.
32.
ScruggsTEMastropieriMA (1989b). Reconstructive elaborations: A model for content area learning. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 311-327.
33.
ScruggsTEMastropieriMA (1990). Mnemonic instruction for students with learning disabilities: What it is and whai it does. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 271-279.
StevensJ (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36.
TabaHElkinsD (1966). Teaching strategies for the culturally disadvantaged. Chicago: Rand McNally.
37.
ThomasJWRohwerWDJr. (1986). Academic studying: The role of learning strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 19-41.
38.
ThorndikeRL (1990). Reliability. In WalbergHJHacrti1GD (Eds.), International encyclopedia of educational evaluation (pp. 260-273). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
39.
TorgesonJKLichtR (1983). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Retrospect and prospects. In McKinneyJDFeagansL (Eds.), Current topics in learning disabilities (pp. 3-31). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
40.
VossJF (1986). Social studies. In DillonRFSternbergRJ (Eds.), Cognition and instruction (pp. 205-245). New York: Academic Press.
41.
WolfMGoodglassH (1986). Dyslexia, dysnomia, and lexical retrieval: A longitudinal investigation. Brain and Language, 28, 154-168.
42.
YsseldykeJAlgozzineBShinnMMcGueM (1982) Similarities and differences between underachievers and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16. 73-85.
